Standing Committee A

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill - Clause 12 - Local government review

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in
clause 12, page 5, line 37, leave out 'But'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
 Amendment No. 12, in 
clause 12, page 5, line 37, after 'direction', insert 'under subsection (1)'. 
Amendment No. 13, in 
clause 12, page 5, line 37, leave out from 'has' to end of line 38 and insert'concluded on the basis of the evidence available to him that there is likely to be a majority in favour of an elected assembly if a referendum is held in that region'.
 Amendment No. 14, in 
clause 12, page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
 Amendment No. 46, in 
clause 12, page 6, line 11, after 'State', insert 'must take as his primary consideration the level of interest in holding a referendum and'.
 Amendment No. 15, in 
clause 12, page 6, line 11, after 'direction', insert 'under subsection (1)'.
 Amendment No. 20, in 
clause 12, page 6, line 39, leave out subsection (10).

Philip Hammond: The amendment would omit ''But'' from the beginning of subsection (2). The Minister smiles wryly. He may suggest that that is trivial, but some of us are struggling to bring up children and explain to them the importance of some recognition of the rules of grammar and syntax. When I was at school, I would not have been allowed to start a sentence with the word ''but'', let alone a paragraph. I do not recall seeing such an approach to architecture in any other Bills. Will the Minister say whether it has any special significance?
 Does the drafting of subsection (2) merely represent the preferences of an individual draftsman, or has the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister developed its own house style of grammar and syntax under the tutelage of no less a personage than the Deputy Prime Minister? I must say that I am not even sure that he would start a sentence or paragraph with the word ''but''. The Minister raises his eyebrows, but I have not noticed the Deputy Prime Minister using sentences or paragraphs: one might describe his style more as a flow of consciousness. 
 On a more serious note, legislative drafting requires economy. Words should not be used where they add nothing to the clause. Subsection (1) states: 
''If the Secretary of State is considering whether to cause a referendum to be held . . . he may direct the Boundary Committee''
 to do certain things. Subsection (2) states: 
''But the Secretary of State must not give a direction unless he has considered the level of interest in the region''.
 It is not clear how the meaning of that subsection would be changed by removing the word ''but''. It would simply read, ''The Secretary of State must not give a direction unless he has considered the level of interest in the region''. That is the conventional form of drafting, as well as the correct grammatical construction. I suspect that the inclusion of the word ''But'' is more than a quirk of the draftsman's pen, as it occurs again in subsection (9) and elsewhere in the Bill. Will this therefore come to the attention of the whole House when it considers the Bill in Committee, as it also occurs in clauses 1 and 3? [Interruption.] The Minister seems to believe that this is not a significant matter, but it is important to establish that legislation should not be a vehicle for people's poetic expression. It should be drafted to be clear, concise and economical. The word ''But'' is redundant. It flies in the face of the Government's own hard work in our primary schools to teach children basic literacy, and we should be concerned about it. 
 I would be very concerned if I believed that the Deputy Prime Minister's personal style of grammar and syntax was allowed to invade the drafting of legislation that his Department presents to Parliament. Hon. Members drew some analogies from television earlier in the debate. I am reminded of Chris Tarrant and wonder if the draftsman had watched ''Who wants to be a Millionaire?'' after he had written the subsection, and had decided to insert the word ''but''. That is obviously lost on the Minister, who has better things to do on a Sunday evening. 
 Amendment No. 12 is a probing amendment to clarify whether I have correctly interpreted the meaning of the reference in subsection (2). That is, that the Secretary of State must not give a direction under subsection (1) unless he has considered the level of interest in the region. I have just given a homily on the economy of drafting, but the one thing that is more important than economy is clarity. If the Minister has a problem about the length of the subsection, I suggest that he removes the word ''but'' and inserts the words ''under subsection (1)''. That will improve the grammar and help to clarify the precise meaning of the sentence. If he is not minded to do that, I would be grateful if he would at least confirm that my interpretation is correct. 
 Amendment No. 13 deals with a more substantive issue.

Jim Knight: Is the issue more substantive than the previous one?

Philip Hammond: I accept that the previous amendment did not deal with a substantive issue, but with drafting. None the less, it was important. On a Standing Committee, I always like, but do not always manage, to try to find an amendment that the Government can accept. On previous occasions, it was the removal of a superfluous semicolon. In my
 many years as Opposition spokesman on health, I found Government Health Ministers to be extraordinarily receptive to helpful suggestions about the improvement of punctuation in the drafting of Bills. It is always nice to achieve something and I had hoped that the Minister might allow us the removal of ''but'' as part of a relatively uncontroversial amendment. After all, it is very early in the morning.
 Amendment No. 13 addresses the question that hon. Members raised in general debate and that will be raised again in relation to the preconditions for the Secretary of State to conduct a referendum when we debate clause 1 in the Committee of the whole House. Subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State must not give a direction to instigate a local government review unless he has considered the level of interest in the region. Many Opposition Members believe that considering the level of interest is a vague notion and something that the Secretary of State might do in a casual moment in the back of a Jaguar car while driving along at high speed.

Gary Streeter: Which one?

Philip Hammond: I cannot enlighten my hon. Friend. I suspect that it could be in the back of any of the various Jaguar cars available to the Deputy Prime Minister.
 We discussed the ability of an aggrieved or concerned citizen to access the courts. So long as the test imposed by the legislation is subjective—the Deputy Prime Minister shall not give a direction unless he has considered the level of interest—it will be difficult for anyone to challenge whether the Secretary of State has properly considered the level of interest. The amendment would introduce a more easily challenged test, if not an objective one. I hope that the Minister will not repeat his point about vexatious and time-wasting challenges in the courts. The courts have plenty of ways of dealing with vexatious and time-wasting applications. If the Minister thinks for a moment, he will see the advantage of giving the Secretary of State some guidance on the sort of test that he must apply. 
 We want to know that the Secretary of State has not merely thought about the matter idly for five minutes, but that he has, as the amendment would ensure, considered the situation in a region and decided, on the basis of the evidence available to him, that there is likely to be a majority in favour of an elected assembly if a referendum is held in that region. Common sense tells me that that is an entirely sensible test to apply. [Interruption.] The Minister seems to be saying no, which surprises me. I thought that he would say that that is what the Deputy Prime Minister would do. 
 I shall be fascinated to hear what the Minister thinks the test should be for holding this rather expensive and disruptive referendum, if it is not that the Secretary of State has considered the evidence and is reasonably confident that a majority would be in favour in that region.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman describes the process as expensive. Will he explain whether the Opposition still believe that referendums should be held simultaneously in all English regions?

Philip Hammond: Yes. We will come to that later. This is a constitutional issue. I would much rather that the Minister avoided the disruption and expense altogether and scrapped this ill-thought-out proposal. If he does not, however, we will suggest during consideration of clause 1—you would not thank me for doing it now in any detail, Mr. Benton—that it would be better to test opinion on this matter throughout England at one time. That would allow a more lucid and coherent campaign on both sides of the argument so that people could understand the issues involved. This is not an issue about single regions, but about the settlement of the English question—how the residuum of England should be organised for the purposes of government—following devolution in Scotland and Wales.

Nick Raynsford: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument in favour of holding referendums simultaneously in all regions. Will he tell the Committee how that is compatible with his amendment?

Philip Hammond: I take the Minister back to the comments that were made at the beginning of the debate. If we were considering the Bill in chronological order, the Committee would have considered the Opposition's amendment proposing a single referendum throughout England. The Committee may have accepted that amendment. If it rejected it, we would have tabled a series of amendments to subsequent provisions to deal with the problems of a region-by-region election. The non-chronological consideration of the Bill places all members of the Committee in some difficulty. We are required to deal with two things simultaneously: the consequential provisions that relate to amendments that we tabled to the first four clauses, which have not yet been decided, and situations that will arise if our amendments to the earlier parts of the Bill are not accepted.
Mr. Raynsford rose—

Philip Hammond: The Minister was obviously up early this morning preparing a series of questions. No doubt we will eventually find out where they are leading. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.
 We are required to table amendments to deal with both eventualities that I described, which is why, as I said at the first sitting, some of our amendments will be mutually incompatible. They are either/or amendments, depending on the outcome of decisions taken earlier by the Committee.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee why this is a matter of chronology? I do not see any chronology in relation to which clauses are considered first. In response to my question on this amendment to this clause, he said that the Opposition believed that a referendum should be held simultaneously in all regions. How is that compatible
 with a clause that states that a referendum can be held only if there is evidence that a majority is in favour of an elected assembly in that region? Unless he believes that a majority is in favour in every single English region, the two must be incompatible.

Philip Hammond: That is absolute nonsense, as the Minister well knows. Something is wrong in his Department. Not only does it have no grip on grammar; it has no grip on logic or ratiocination. We are examining alternative scenarios. One is where we decide that this constitutional issue must be dispensed with once and for all. It was dreamt up in the Deputy Prime Minister's head many years ago and, together with many other grudges that he has harboured over the years, it was nurtured there. Eventually, he managed to negotiate its emergence into the light of day.
 Conservative Members, on the other hand, feel that it would be better to test opinion in England to establish whether the Government's scheme could possibly represent a stable solution for the whole of England. We submit—it is our principal concern—that it does not. It may be viewed as an attractive proposition in one or two regions of the country, but unless the Government can demonstrate that they can provide a settlement for the whole of England that is fair, balanced and deals with the issues in all regions, they will have failed the first test. 
 We have outlined our preference. In my five and half years' experience, the Government usually, if not always, refuse to listen to the reasoned arguments of Opposition Members, and they are likely to reject our proposals. Some important exceptions have occurred—the Utilities Bill in 2000 springs immediately to mind—when the Government were forced to retreat and drop provisions after they had been published. However, we have to work on the premise that the Government will not accept any serious challenge to the substance of their proposals. 
 The Minister asked how amendment No. 13 was compatible with the amendment that my right hon. Friends and I tabled to introduce a nationwide single-day referendum. The answer is, of course, that it is not compatible. If the amendment to clause 1 were carried and clause 1 had been considered in chronological order, we would obviously not have tabled amendment No. 13. If the Minister can give an assurance that he will not resist the amendment to clause 1, which proposes a single-day all-England referendum, I would be delighted to withdraw amendment No. 13 and proceed with the remainder of the Bill's consideration. 
 In conclusion, it is appropriate to introduce a more sensible test of the climate for a referendum for the Secretary of State to consider. ''Climate'' is a good word. The question is whether the test should be that the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest—that says nothing because he would have considered the level of interest even if he found that only one in 1,000 voters were remotely interested—or whether it should be slightly more objective. Should not the Secretary of State have to consider and reasonably conclude, in the light of the available evidence, that a simple majority of voters are in 
 favour? I have not introduced any complex concepts or thresholds—

Nick Raynsford: Yet!

Philip Hammond: I have no intention of introducing the concept of thresholds into the ministerial consideration pre-referendum, so it is a relatively soft test. The Secretary of State would need to convince himself only that the majority of electors were likely to vote in favour. I suspect that, for political reasons, that is the test that the Secretary of State will have to apply. He can hardly afford to call a referendum in a region—especially the first referendum—and discover that he had it all wrong because the majority vote against. In practice, that will be the Secretary of Secretary's consideration. There is far too much ministerial discretion in the Bill. A slightly more objective test of what the Secretary of State has to do in clause 12(2) is needed.
 Amendment No. 14 leaves out subsection (3). It is consequential to an amendment that we have tabled to clause 1 relating to a single-day national referendum. It will be needed if the Government accept that amendment when we debate it on the Floor of the House, otherwise it will be redundant. At our first sitting, Mr. Benton, your co-Chairman Mr. Butterfill ruled that if an amendment on clauses 1 to 4 requiring consequential amendments were accepted by the Committee of the whole House, it would be proper for those consequential amendments to be introduced by the Government on Report. This is simply a tidying exercise. 
 Amendment No. 46, in the names of the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green), seeks to change the wording of subsection (5), so that it requires the Secretary of State to take as his primary consideration the level of interest in holding a referendum; the other issues he will consider include the impact on local authorities in the region and the implications for the boundary committee. I am not quite sure what the relevance of the amendment is, so I will reserve comment until I hear what the hon. Member for Ludlow has to say. 
 Amendment No. 15 is a drafting amendment. The same arguments apply as applied to amendment No. 12. It is a simply a question of clarification. If the Government will not accept that minor tidying-up amendment, it would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that that is the correct interpretation of the subsection. That brings us to amendment No. 20, which seeks to leave out subsection (10). I am always reluctant to table such amendments. A favourite trick of the Liberal Democrats when they are a bit pushed for amendments is to table amendments saying, ''leave out subsection (1), (2), (3)'' ad nauseam. It can be rather boring to debate. 
 Subsection (10) is worthy of a moment's consideration. It reads: 
''A direction under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent direction.''
 There is nothing exceptional about that, but I cannot quite see why it is necessary. Surely a subsequent direction saying that the previous direction is revoked and making other arrangements would be equally valid if it is done in the proper way in compliance with the usual procedures. The Minister will correct me and quote precedent if I am wrong, but it does not seem that we routinely build into legislation provisions that say, ''and any order made can be revoked or varied by a subsequent order.'' That is one of the accepted practices of statutory instruments. 
 I have just spotted something. That direction will be made not by a statutory instrument but by ministerial fiat, with no opportunity for consideration by Parliament whatever. That may be what lies behind the Minister's including the subsection. The solution is simple and I proposed it at another point in our proceedings. I am not sure whether it has been printed, but I have tabled an amendment to clause 27 that would require directions made under the Bill to be made by statutory instrument, so that Parliament had a proper opportunity to scrutinise them. 
 Amendment No. 20 would be helpful, because it would remove the subsection and thus shorten the Bill by a line and a half. I am sure that all Ministers are anxious to make their Bills as concise as possible, so that they are as ecologically friendly as possible and use the minimum amount of paper. 
 These varied amendments deal with the drafting of, and substantive procedures in, clause 12. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about those issues and I look forward to responding to his remarks.

Matthew Green: I shall rush over amendments Nos. 11 and 12; time has been spent discussing a couple of items of grammar. We do not share the Conservatives' enthusiasm for amendment No. 13. It would prevent a referendum from taking place in a region that had a good no campaign, or support for a no vote. That is fairly undemocratic, and I cannot see how we could bring ourselves to support it. Why are the Conservatives in effect getting the Secretary of State to support a no vote for them, if they believe that the no campaign in a referendum would win? Surely it is better to trust the public and to let the public decide, rather than leaving the matter to a Minister.

Philip Hammond: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would support a move to remove ministerial discretion from the question—in other words, to create the single-day, all-region referendum that we propose in relation to clause 1?

Matthew Green: No, I am not saying that. The Minister decides; I am talking about what we ask the Minister to conclude. The amendment refers to the Secretary of State having
''concluded on the basis of the evidence available to him that there is likely to be a majority in favour'',
 whereas previously strong support was talked about. There is a difference.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is misguided and will get into trouble if he does not read the clause carefully, because the word ''support'' does not appear in it. The word that appears in the Bill is ''interest'', and interest in a subject is very different from support for one side or another. We are talking about a referendum to change the status quo, and it is logical to proceed only if there is evidence of support for such a change.

Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman, because he has helped to make my point for me. He is right that the clause talks about ''interest''. However, the consideration of interest levels means that the Minister could push a referendum where it was unclear whether there would be a majority, but there was strong interest in the region for that, thereby leaving it up to the public to decide.

Jim Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there may be some logic in a region deciding to hold a referendum because it has a view against a regional assembly, in order to give some certainty to local government? The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) advanced that argument at a previous sitting. He is concerned about the uncertainty in local government reorganisation that may flow from the proposal. For example, the south-east region may decide that it would gain certainty for five years by having a referendum and getting a no result. I would not agree with it, but it is a logical reason for wanting to have a referendum on a no presumption.

Matthew Green: The regions cannot decide to hold a referendum but they can show a lot of interest in having one. I hope that the Minister would take note of that interest.
 The Conservative amendment would mean that before he took a decision, the Minister would have to assess whether a referendum was likely to be won, not that there was strong interest in it. In effect, it would ask the Minister to prejudge the outcome of an election.

Gary Streeter: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He said earlier that it should be left to the public to decide the level of interest. If in the soundings that are taken, 100 people respond, 49 are passionately in favour of a referendum, and 51 favour leaving things as they are, although they are less passionate about it, what have the public decided?

Matthew Green: When taking soundings, one would probably want to consider the level of interest in holding a referendum. That is different from the support that is likely to flow from a referendum, which is what we leave to the public.

Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman has probably seen the wonderful document that has been sent to all members of the Committee. People can fill it in and tick boxes to show whether they want a referendum.

Desmond Swayne: As the hon. Member for Ludlow has not read the Bill, I doubt whether he has read that document.

Gary Streeter: The hon. Member for Ludlow may not have done. That document invites people to tick a
 box and say whether they are interested in having a referendum. If the hon. Gentleman were sitting in the Minister's chair—or limousine—how would he decide whether that represented a level of interest or a level of support when he considered the document?

Matthew Green: I think it is clear that there are different levels of interest in different regions of the country in having a referendum. Regardless of the result of a referendum in the north-east, there is a fairly strong interest in having a referendum to decide whether there is regional government. I do not know what the result would be of such a referendum, although I hope that it would be won.

Adrian Flook: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us about his experiences in Shropshire. Is there a level of interest or support for a regional assembly in that area?

Matthew Green: I may test your patience, Mr. Benton, but I would love to talk about Shropshire, and I shall do so briefly. There is probably quite a lot of interest in Shropshire in having regional government, although perhaps not in the region it is in. There is strong interest in having a single unitary authority for Shropshire, which the Conservatives support, and we do not want to wait for a regional referendum in order to have such an authority. The parties are unanimous in wanting a unitary council to replace the present two-tier system.
 Amendment No. 14 seems confused. It would stop the Secretary of State from allowing a referendum in which there is more interest to go ahead before one that has less interest, or the other way round, which effectively brings the Conservatives back to their point about holding all the referendums at the same time. I think that that would be the result of the amendment, although the Conservatives brushed over it earlier and said that it was a drafting change. It would have a greater impact than that and the Conservatives should explain why they have tabled the amendment. 
 The Conservative spokesman asked us why we had tabled amendment No. 46. We tabled it because we want to make it clear that the reason for holding a region-wide review of local government is that there is interest in holding a referendum for regional government, not in carrying out a boundary review of local government. Our amendment would strengthen what I believe the Minister would say is the intention of the clause. I hope that the Minister will be minded to accept the amendment at some stage. I see that he is shaking his head. 
 The amendment seeks to clarify that the purpose of the review is to determine whether a referendum should be held for regional government, not to examine local government by the back door. I hope that none of it stops the Secretary of State from carrying out a review of local government beforehand if he so wishes. We would welcome him carrying out such a review for Shropshire next week. 
 Amendment No. 15, which the Conservatives tabled, appears similar to our amendment No. 46, 
 but is slightly less forceful. We therefore have little problem with it. 
 Amendment No. 20 is interesting, although I am not sure that the Conservatives have thought through its logic. Their spokesman certainly did not mention it when speaking to the group of amendments. It would remove the means by which any direction to hold a review of local government may be revoked after it is given.

Philip Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman should let me move on.
 The amendment would mean that if the Secretary of State ordered a review and then realised that the level of interest in holding a referendum was less than he first believed, he could not stop the review.

Philip Hammond: Clearly, when I moved the amendment and spoke to it, my complaint against the subsection was that it appeared to be redundant, because a new direction could stop or suspend a review that had already been implemented by the first direction without it. My question to the Minister was why it was necessary to include in the Bill a specific power to make a direction that varied a previous direction.

Matthew Green: It is important to make it clear that the process can be stopped, which is what, in effect, the subsection says. There is a danger that the regional referendum could be stopped, but that the review of local government would carry on. The Conservatives might end up seeing county councils in certain parts of the country abolished or removed for unitary government, even though there had been a regional referendum. I do not believe that that is the Conservatives' intention, and we were surprised at the amendment.

Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman made a point about the Secretary of State reaching a view on the level of interest, ordering a review of local government boundaries and then discovering that the level of interest in that region had changed. The level of interest will be settled by the responses to the wonderful form that will be sent out, so how will the Secretary of State become aware of a variation in the level of interest later in the process? Does he anticipate a second review or a second process?

Matthew Green: This is one of my overall concerns about the direction in which the Government are taking the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton has already begun to argue the case for de-coupling the local government review from the referendum for a regional government. Many people in a region may express a strong interest in regional government without realising that it might lead to a substantial review of local government. When they finally realise that, they may lose their interest in regional government, which would be a great shame. That is one reason why we suggest that if the Government want to win the referendums—I hope that they do, as we also want them won—they should decouple the process from local government reform. Frankly, some people may support regional
 government, but be unhappy with proposed local government changes. If it comes down to one question, they will vote against regional government. The Government risk forcing people to take that action.

Philip Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman find it curious that, prior to putting the referendum question, the Government believe it necessary and appropriate to place the detailed outcome of a local government boundary review before the electorate, yet they do not feel it necessary or appropriate to have in place the legislation that will define the role and powers of elected regional assemblies?

Matthew Green: I agree entirely. It is a shame that we have already formed a pattern of holding referendums without knowing the precise powers that regional government is likely to have. We would like to change that, but the ability to do so does not lie with the Opposition side of the Committee. The Government are effectively helping the no campaign by failing to make the powers precise. Perhaps they intend to confer so few powers that they realise publishing their plans would help the no campaign. They are not helping themselves to win the referendum. Overall, it is a mixed bag of amendments on clause 12, but we can find a couple to support.

Desmond Swayne: When the Minister answers the big question about the ''but'', perhaps he could also explain one of the great mysteries of life—why all royal statements begin with ''Whereas''. The Minister sent a helpful letter and document, dated 3 December, on the consultations and soundings. In an important section titled, ''Choosing the regions to hold a referendum'', paragraph 18 begins with ''Before'', paragraph 19 with ''However'' and paragraph 20 with ''Rather''—all of which fall under the same category as ''But''—but, I am particularly interested in these representations. When the Minister replies, will he explain what is meant by paragraph 20:
''Rather this paper seeks views, evidence and information on the level of interest in each region in holding a referendum on establishing an elected regional assembly. Please note that this is distinct from the level of interest in each region in an elected regional assembly''?
 I am not sure that such a distinction can be sustained. Is there a difference between interest in having a referendum and interest in having an elected assembly? I would have thought that the two were so intimately connected that they amounted to one and the same thing. If the Minister believes that the two are distinct, I look forward to hearing not only why, but how he is going to measure the distinct nature of the two and how the two different measures of interest are to be distinguished to inform the decision about whether to proceed with a referendum.

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Desmond Swayne: I will in a moment—[Laughter.]—I shall steel myself first.
 The key issue is about the political reality. The Deputy Prime Minister clearly said on Second Reading that he would campaign for a yes vote. I see 
 nothing wrong with him admitting that a key factor in his decision to proceed with a referendum is his assessment of the likelihood of a yes vote. That is a political reality and there is nothing wrong with that. I am keen that it should be clear what consideration amounts to. That is why we have tabled the amendment.

Matthew Green: Let me give an example that will make the distinction clear to the hon. Gentleman. Take the question of a referendum on the euro. Some people who oppose the euro might see the referendum as a means of stopping it for a very long time. They would therefore support the referendum but oppose joining the euro. At the moment, I am sure that the Conservatives would love a referendum on that if they look at the polls. They would assume that the euro would be defeated.

Desmond Swayne: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that the Minister will come up with a clearer distinction. I refute the impression that the Minister attempted to create with his interventions, body language and sedentary mutterings, that the key amendment and our stated preference for a single-day settlement of the issue are incompatible. We are talking about two completely different sets of circumstances. While our preference is to have the issue dealt with in a one-off referendum for the whole of England, the Bill goes for regional preferences. We will have a referendum if a particular region expresses a preference for that. The amendment is wholly appropriate to those circumstances, whereas it would not be appropriate for our stated preference on the first part of the Bill.

Gary Streeter: I shall make one or two comments in support of the amendments. First, in relation to grammar, I was alarmed at the reactions of Labour Members to the important arguments about getting the wording right. Many of us go into schools and talk to years 12 and 13—the sixth form in old language—to explain what Parliament does. We then come to tricky issue of what a Standing Committee does. How many of us have stood in front of lovely, if spotty, people—[Interruption.] obviously, they are not spotty in Plymouth—to explain that we go through Bills line by line? We take each word apart and ask whether it is the right way to express it because we do not want poor legislation. That is the whole purpose of Standing Committees.
 It was extremely alarming to see the smirks of Labour Members when my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned the sudden appearance of the word ''but'' at the beginning of subsection (2). The word is superfluous. A lot of money—sometimes, public money—has been spent on legal cases that wrangle over the meaning of one word, for example, whether there should be an ''and'' in the sentence, or over the meaning of an ''and'' or a ''but''. I hope that the Minister will instruct his civil servants to ensure that the wording of the Bill is as tight as it can be. My hon. Friend's amendment is absolutely right. I noticed that subsection (1) begins with ''If''. Subsection (2) begins with ''but''. Perhaps the only surprise is that subsection (3) does not begin with 
 ''Maybe''. In one sense, that is the whole message coming from the Bill—it is full of ifs, buts and maybes. It is not clear legislation. 
 Secondly, the Minister interrupted my hon. Friend twice, rather aggressively, which suggests that he had been eating raw meat for breakfast, about whether our amendment contradicted our earlier claim that we think a referendum should be held in every region of the country at the same time. I was amazed that the Minister seemed utterly unaware that in every courtroom up and down this country today Queen's Counsel will be pleading in the alternative. It is the most common practice of all to pit arguments in the alternative, on the basis that if one falls, the next can be used. If that falls, one relies on the next. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has made it abundantly clear that our preference is for a referendum, if there have to be referendums at all, in every region of the country at the same time. That will be discussed next Wednesday on the Floor of the House. This amendment clearly pleads in the alternative. If the Government foolishly whip their Back Benchers to vote against our amendment in the teeth of coherent and rational arguments, we will fall back on this amendment. There is nothing wrong or irrational about that. 
 Thirdly, we will discuss in detail how the Government will assess the level of interest. I suspect, Mr. Benton, that you would not want us to go too far down that road, but I was shocked to receive a letter from the Minister for Local Government and the Regions saying that he was enclosing the level of interest document that has gone out to local authorities, political parties, Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and so on. It arrived not only before the Bill has completed its passage through the House, but before the Bill even came to Standing Committee. What on earth is the tearing hurry? According to that document, the consultation period will be over by 3 March 2003. That is two and a half months' time. This country has survived thousands of years without regional government.

Nick Raynsford: Wessex.

Gary Streeter: I do not think that Wessex was a regional government.

Nick Raynsford: It was a kingdom.

Gary Streeter: Is it perhaps the Government's secret intention to establish a country fit for a king? I do not think that we are talking about the heir to the throne.
 I am concerned that the Government are making a crass assumption that the House will support the Bill. Paragraph 14 in the soundings document, which I will study very carefully before next week, says: 
''Parliament will consider the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill carefully and may amend it.''
 That is very gracious of the Government to accept that Parliament might amend the Bill.

Philip Hammond: Does my hon. Friend accept that on the basis of our experience, it is far more likely that that amendment will not be a result of the Government listening carefully to the arguments of
 Opposition Members, but a result of them realising that in their rush to produce legislation they have incorporated hundreds of errors that need to be corrected.

Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend is right. I am a very non-partisan sort of person, so I think back to the last piece of infamous legislation that was rushed through the House. We all know that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was not successful legislation and contained many errors. I am worried that this Bill will reach the statute book in the same way. It will be the dangerous referendums Act. The second sentence of paragraph 14 of the soundings document states:
''This soundings exercise is being conducted on the assumption that the relevant provisions in the Bill will remain substantially unchanged.''
 What is the point of bothering with Parliament at all? Why do the Government not assume that everything that they want to do will be waved through by the House of Commons and by the House of Lords? Why does the Minister bother coming here at all? He could be touring the country whipping up support, or perhaps apathy, for regional referendums. Why bother coming here at all? He assumes that all this legislation will go through. It beggars belief. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made the point extremely lucidly. The level of interest that the Government hope to extract from the people of this country is not about whether they should have an elected regional assembly. The soundings document says a little about regional assemblies and local government reviews, but paragraph 19 states: 
''this soundings exercise is not seeking your comments on these . . . matters''.
 It says that the Government want to know not whether people think that an elected regional assembly is a good idea, but whether people think that a referendum is a good idea. 
 I hope that the Minister will explain carefully why the Government seek to ascertain levels of interest not in an elected assembly, but in a referendum. Do the Government really believe that if there is a massive level of interest in a referendum, people are expressing their support so that they can vote no?

Adrian Flook: I wish to reiterate the comments made by my colleagues, particularly on the document that was sent to local authorities last week. To what extent does that reflect the White Paper ''Your Region, Your Choice'', and was there any feedback from local authorities on that paper? If there was, will the Minister say what it was, so that we can consider further whether the document sent to local authorities reflects it?

Philip Hammond: I cannot speak for the feedback that the Minister has had from local authorities, but my hon. Friend might be interested to know that my colleagues and I have received a number of representations from local authorities, which inform at least some of the amendments that we have tabled.

Adrian Flook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Conservative Members would very much like to know what responses have been sent back
 to the Minister in the consultation and whether the Government have taken any of that into account. Will he enlighten us as to whether any responses have been considered, particularly in relation to the provisions in clause 12?

Nick Raynsford: This has been a varied debate in terms of the importance of the issues raised and the quality of the contributions. I shall not use the pejorative term used by the hon. Member for Ludlow.
 I shall start with amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 15. These might appear to be minor drafting points, but the Opposition clearly attach great significance to them. I say to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that almost every Committee over which I have presided, and certainly the larger ones, has always been happy to accept Opposition amendments that were logical and made sense. I do not simply leave the Opposition the opportunity of an occasional amendment on a minor matter of punctuation, but it does depend on the amendments' being logical, making sense and being convincing. Let us be clear: we are not predisposed against accepting amendments, provided that they enhance the Bill and make sense. 
 There is a good reason for the word ''but'' to which the hon. Gentleman objects in clause 12. There are precedents; it is used in other legislation, such as the crimes legislation, the Animal Health Act 2002, the Enterprise Act 2002 and, I am told, many others.

Philip Hammond: Those are all Acts from the Minister's Government. If he thinks that there is a substantive reason for using the word ''but'', why is it necessary for it to start a sentence in a new subsection, rather than being a continuation of subsection (1) and a qualification of what is said before? That would be the grammatically correct way to use the word.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman raises issues of grammar. The English language, like any other living means of communication is not static; it evolves and develops. Conventions that may have been regarded as important in Victorian England have changed. Indeed, conventions that may have governed the instruction that the hon. Gentleman gives to his children and that I received when I was taught English are perhaps less appropriate now. I thought about that in the context of a carol service that I attended last Sunday in my constituency, as one of the readings was by Benjamin Zephaniah. When I was at school, that would not have happened, as Benjamin Zephaniah uses the sort of language that would probably not have been regarded as a good use of English. Nowadays, we take a different view.
 English is a living, creative language and it evolves. I see no objection to starting a new sentence, or a new paragraph, with the word ''but'' and I am sorry if it offends the hon. Gentleman. Provided that it makes sense and that there is a logic to it—which there is—we should not object to it. It is used in this case as a means of linking the provisions and drawing a distinction that some do not apply unless a condition is satisfied or a procedure, such as the making of an order, is 
 followed. There is logic and good sense about it and it helps to impart the meaning of the proposal clearly and precisely. It is not poetic licence, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, nor is it redundant.

Gary Streeter: What would be the difference in the subsection if it did not include the word ''but''?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and, as he conceded earlier, he and others in his profession will spend a great deal of time arguing about the meaning of one word. My job as a Minister is to ensure that the measures presented to the House and enacted after Royal Assent are written in a way that makes their meaning and purpose easy to understand and which will be correctly interpreted in the future. The word ''but'' helps to establish the linkage and connection between the relevant two passages in the Bill. I fully accept that lawyers will form a different view, as that is their way of doing things, but I have given my opinion that the word is a useful and perfectly proper use of language that helps to convey the meaning.
 The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about the references in amendments Nos. 12 and 15 to subsection (1). Such references are redundant because it is part of the current phrasing that the direction is a direction made under subsection (1). There is no need to include the amendments to achieve the clarity that the hon. Gentleman desires. He asked for clarification on the point and I hope that he is satisfied with my assurance. 
 On the more substantive points, amendment No. 13 would mean that instead of there being a requirement to consider the level of interest in a region in holding a referendum before directing a local government review, the Secretary of State must conclude that a referendum is likely to result in a yes vote. I agree with the hon. Member for Ludlow, who said that it would be bizarre for the Secretary of State to have to prejudge the outcome of a referendum before it was held. He gave examples of there being an interest in the subject but no clear preference one way or the other among respondents. Such a situation may well arise; our view is not that all regions of England are necessarily in favour of having elected regional assemblies. We believe that they should have choice. It is perfectly possible that referendums will result in a no vote, not simply a yes vote. Therefore, it would be very odd indeed—apart from being wholly inconsistent with the Opposition's argument in favour of holding all the referendums simultaneously on the same date—if the Secretary of State was bound to call a referendum only if he was satisfied that it was likely to result in a yes vote. 
 It is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to predetermine the outcome—

Graham Stringer: Would my right hon. Friend care to help me by defining ''level of interest''?

Nick Raynsford: The level of interest is the degree of interest expressed by people and organisations in the region. That is why we are conducting the soundings exercise, to which hon. Members have referred. We want to establish the degree of interest taken by local
 authorities and other bodies in the region and by individuals.

Desmond Swayne: How many responses to the document constitutes acceptance of interest rather than disinterest?

Nick Raynsford: The kind of mechanistic response that the hon. Gentleman seeks is entirely incompatible with a proper exercise and consultation. I shall give him an illustration. If the response from a club that has 1,000 members says, ''This is the view of the club. We have consulted all our members and our members support what we are saying,'' it is a different proposition from that of a club with five members whose response is to say that they have decided something on the say-so of the chairman and secretary of the club, meeting privately without consulting the members. That is why we must take into account the fact that there will be differences in the responses that come in, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Desmond Swayne: So it is like the block vote in the Labour party?

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman feels that he has landed a double whammy, he will need to take lessons from his erstwhile friend Lord Patten, who devised that concept. He showed a facility in landing punches that the hon. Member for New Forest, West will need to cultivate.

Adrian Flook: My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West made a good point about block votes and interest. I note that annex A of the soundings document on the Bill is the pro-forma for responses. The Minister said that he would take note of the size of the organisations that might wish to reply to the soundings exercise, yet nowhere does annex A state that one should say how large an organisation is represented. For example, someone could put down the tiddly winks club of Plymouth and not know that it represented 1,000 people.

Nick Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Taunton has not read the document because the first item, paragraph 1 of annex A requires the respondent to give
''Your name, or that of the organisation on whose behalf you are responding (if you are responding on behalf of a representative group, please list the people/organisations you represent)''.
 The hon. Gentleman clearly has not bothered to read the document, which we kindly supplied, and which makes it perfectly clear that organisations should give a proper indication of the extent to which they are representative of other groups and organisations. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are umbrella organisations in the voluntary sector that cover a number of different groups and that there are clubs with a large membership and others with a very small membership. It is appropriate for such organisations, groups and clubs to give such information in their response and the document encourages them to do so.

Adrian Flook: I managed to read paragraph 1 of annex A as hon. Members argued for many minutes about the use of the word ''But''. Paragraph 1 allows a space of about half an inch to lay out whom a club
 represents. The pro-forma for responses does not ask the respondent to say how many people are represented. It merely asks for the name of the organisation or group being represented, not every person on it or how many are on the list.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not had much experience of consultation exercises because most organisations send a covering letter when they respond. The idea that there is no opportunity for respondents to spell out the details because the pro-forma provides insufficient space for them to do so is somewhat lame. Organisations know only too well how to convey that information, and if there is no space to convey it on the pro-forma, they can do so in a covering letter or in an accompanying document.

Philip Hammond: The Minister declined to tell the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) what level of response to the document would be required in order to show that there was interest in a region. Does the Minister recognise that, given that the consultation is about a referendum to change the status quo, it would be wholly wrong for him to draw conclusions from the proportion of the responses received that showed interest or disinterest? Does he accept that it is simply human nature that those who are not interested and dismiss the process will be less inclined to respond to the consultation than those who are interested?

Nick Raynsford: No, I do not. People who have a strongly negative view are often prompted to write in consultations. The hon. Gentleman need only think of his constituency experiences. If a proposal were made to, say, build an incinerator in his constituency, I should not imagine that he would be deluged with supportive letters, but he would get many letters opposing the idea. That is human nature.

Philip Hammond: The Minister is mixing his arguments to suit the case. He is now talking about levels of support, but the question is the level of interest. Will he accept that those who are not interested are less likely to engage in the process? Surely that is not a particularly controversial suggestion. All that I am asking him to do is to make it clear that he will not treat the proportion of respondents expressing interest or disinterest as delivering any particular message. It would be almost bizarre for someone to reply to a consultation saying that they were not interested in the process.

Nick Raynsford: It is perfectly possible that many people will respond to say that they do not have any interest in a referendum, given that we said clearly that we are seeking responses on the level of interest. Others might say that they dislike the idea of an elected regional assembly but would still like a referendum on the subject, as the hon. Member for Ludlow suggested. Clearly, we need to assess the interest in a referendum, because that is the key question.
 Once again, there does not seem to be much consistency in the Opposition case. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge really believed that it was necessary to have such an accurate test of the level of interest in different 
 regions, he would not support amendment No. 14, which would delete subsection (3). The subsection requires the Secretary of State to consider the differences in interest in the various regions when determining whether referendums will be held. It is clear that the Bill requires the Secretary of State not only to undertake a soundings exercise to test the levels of interest, as we have done, but to gauge the responses, to weigh up and to compare the interest in each region.

Graham Stringer: Can my right hon. Friend the Minister say why the undefined, unquantified level of interest test that the Deputy Prime Minister will make is superior to the tests and mechanisms used for initiating the elected mayor procedure?

Nick Raynsford: It will not necessarily be preferable, better or worse. The processes are different. We rightly test opinion on a range of subjects. There are different ways of doing so. We are seeking to gauge opinion on the interest in a referendum on elected regional assemblies throughout the English regions. I suspect that there will be quite significant variations. The evidence suggests that some regions have more interest in, and a greater sense of urgency about, holding a referendum than others. Before they dip their toes in the water, some might wish to wait to see what the outcomes of initial referendums are and, if they produce yes votes, to observe how the first elected regional assemblies operate. That is perfectly proper, but it is a different process from the one that asks all local authorities to review their constitutions and to consult their electorates about the constitution that they should adopt from a specific date, where there is a clear deadline for the completion of the consultation and for putting the new constitutional arrangements in place. However, although they are different processes, in both of them there is a proper requirement to consult the public and to take into account their views and interests before action is taken.

Graham Stringer: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point: the legislative framework that has been created is different from that which is being created. However, that does not wholly explain why the ability of the electorate to initiate the process, which exists, quite apart from the consultation exercise for elected mayors, is left out of this process.

Nick Raynsford: This process is about taking soundings. We have tried to help the Committee by ensuring that the document was published and made available in time for members to consider it. We issued it more widely so that people in the regions could ponder these issues at the same time as the Committee. That is a perfectly proper way to take soundings and to seek opinion. We will gauge things as and when we receive responses. It is very early days. As my hon. Friend knows, the consultation has only just begun—the soundings were initiated over the past few days.

Gary Streeter: In the interests of transparency and open Government, which I know that the Minister passionately supports, I ask why the Government have chosen this starting mechanism for referendums on regional government, rather than the clear and
 measurable mechanism for trying to elect a directly elected mayor. Why did they draw that distinction? Why have they chosen a different gateway?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my response to my hon. Friend. I said that I am talking about a process that could take place over a considerable time and where there is no requirement to put in place a new constitutional arrangement by a specific date. It is clear that the circumstances are not analogous to those of a consultation about the new constitutional arrangements that all local authorities have to have in place by the end of this year.

Philip Hammond: There could be no clearer indication that there is a certain level of interest in holding a referendum in a region than if, let us say, 5 per cent. of its electorate signed a petition to the Secretary of State requesting such a referendum. Is the Minister saying that he would be receptive to the inclusion of such a power instead of, or in addition to the powers that this Bill gives to initiate referendums?

Nick Raynsford: There are fundamental differences. The first is to do with size. When one is talking about a region of several million people, a petition that is signed by 5 per cent. of them would present many signatures to be validated and checked—certainly many more than 5 per cent. of the average local authority. The second is raised frequently by the Opposition: the differences between parts of a region. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, overall, a 5 per cent. petition is sufficient evidence, is he suggesting that if all of those signatures came from within one very small part of the region that would be decisive and conclusive evidence of support in the region? If that is the case, he will be undermining the arguments that he has already advanced, and will, no doubt, continue to advance, on the subject.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for that contribution because he has drawn attention to an interesting point. Is he amenable to accepting an amendment to clause 1, which we can still table at this stage, that would require the Secretary of State not only to consider the level of interest in a region, but to satisfy himself that that level of interest was evenly distributed between its urban and rural areas?

Nick Raynsford: We have chosen the phrase,
''the level of interest in the region''
 carefully and intentionally. We intend to consider the evidence from the whole region and not be tied to evidence coming in from one part of it. It is difficult to gauge precisely what the hon. Gentleman is asking.

Matthew Green: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman would bear with me for one moment, I am trying to respond to the previous intervention.
 It would not be feasible to construct an amendment that met the objective set out by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge without creating potential anomalies and restrictions. Nevertheless, we will examine any amendment that he tables. It is our intention to gauge the level of interest from the region 
 as a whole. In giving that assurance, I hope that he will understand that our approach is the right way to avoid the type of problems that could be created by the mechanistic approach that he suggests.

Matthew Green: I welcome the fact that the Minister says that he will be looking at the level of interest throughout the whole region. If he receives strong representation from the counties of Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire that tell him that, although they might like a referendum, they do not want to be part of the west midlands, how will the Minister interpret that as an expression of interest?

Nick Raynsford: That is a good try, but we have made it clear already that we would not re-open the boundary issues in relation to the regions. I am afraid that that would be a distraction that would set back for a long time the introduction of regional assemblies, which is a principal objective of the hon. Gentleman's party.

Gary Streeter: This is a slightly different point, but I wish to elicit information from the Minister. In relation to named recipients of the soundings document who do not respond, such as MPs, MEPs and local authorities, how will the Minister weigh the lack of response? Does it count as a lack of interest to be weighed in the scales, or is it completely excluded from the equation?

Nick Raynsford: The Government do not take the approach adopted by the party supported by the hon. Gentleman in its housing legislation in 1988—although he may have been a member of another party at the time. The Conservative Government construed a view about those who did not vote. That is an unsound constitutional principle. We should not make any assumption about non-responses. Our objective will be to gauge the level of interest by people expressing an interest and responding. We will not conclude that the fact that people do not respond implies that they take a view one way or another about the merits of an elected regional assembly.

Gary Streeter: Why does the Minister not make that view clear in the document by saying, ''If you don't send in the reply, it will not be considered to be a measurable lack of interest? You must respond to say that you're not interested''?

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would have heard me say that, in such circumstances, I would not draw a conclusion about people's views for or against an elected regional assembly. If there is a low response, one might conclude that there is not much interest. That is a factor to take into account. My point is that I will not draw a conclusion about people's preferences one way or another on the issue based on non-response.
 The hon. Member for Ludlow asked about a unitary Shropshire. I confirm that the structural review that we propose is a necessary corollary of a move to a referendum on an elected regional assembly. If his aspiration is a unitary Shropshire, that may be an outcome. However, we currently have no intention to instigate such reviews other than in the context of referendums for regional governments. I disappoint him in his hope to have one part of the equation 
 without the other: of necessity, the two go hand in hand.

Matthew Green: The Minister will obviously look at the level of interest in regional government. The west midlands is perhaps a debatable area, but it has been said that it is unlikely that there is a strong level of interest in the south-east and that it will not be among the first tranche. I do not know that area particularly well, but parts of local government may need reorganisation during the next decade, say. If there is to be no local government reorganisation unless there is regional government, we will be holding parts of the country back from necessary reform.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. He must be aware of the potentially disruptive effects of reorganisation, especially if it were conducted in a relatively unstructured way as happened in the early 1990s under the Banham review, when a disproportionate amount of time, effort and energy was dissipated without many consequences. We have no intention of revisiting that experience. The primary responsibility of local authorities should be to deliver efficient services to their public. The publication today of the comprehensive performance assessment is a further step in the direction of helping people to understand how well their council is doing, and helping councils to concentrate on improving service delivery standards.

Matthew Green: At least one of the five district councils in Shropshire is coming close to asking to be abolished. It wants to hand over its powers to the county council. Other districts may reach the same decision because they are small and find it difficult to function economically. We may not see a regional referendum in the west midlands for a long time. In those circumstances, the economic situation of the small district councils in Shropshire will continue to deteriorate.

Nick Raynsford: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view about the timing of a referendum in the west midlands. When I have visited the area, I have encountered much interest in an elected regional assembly, although that interest may not apply throughout the whole region. I shall not reach a final view until I have seen the outcome of the soundings. I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman, however. There is a clear procedure for structural reviews to be undertaken in the context of a referendum for an elected regional assembly. I am sure that he will vote positively to secure an elected regional assembly and some degree of local government reorganisation in his county, which I know he favours.

Philip Hammond: The Minister said that he has identified considerable interest, but does he recognise that Ministers do not always occupy the position that best enables them to see what is really happening on the ground? When he visits the west midlands, he will meet people who are interested in the subject—whether they are for or against it, those people will make sure that they meet him. It is a little like saying that the Prime Minister does not believe that there is a traffic congestion problem in London. If a person sits in the back of a Jaguar and has motorcycle outriders, he will not perceive the problem. If a Minister attends
 a ministerial meeting to discuss elected regional assemblies, he will perceive a level of interest in that subject.

Nick Raynsford: At the risk of upsetting you, Mr. Benton, by straying into areas that are far removed from the amendments, I must say that I have received no information that the Prime Minister said that there is no traffic congestion in London. To say that he has is a preposterous suggestion. Anyone who lives and works in London is only too well aware of the congestion. The hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree.
 Amendment No. 46 would have no effect. That is probably a good metaphor for the Opposition party.

Philip Hammond: Perhaps the Minister would put it on the record that amendment No. 46 was tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

Nick Raynsford: I did not specify which Opposition party.
 The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the primary factor when deciding in which region or regions to direct a local government review is the level of interest in the region in holding a referendum. By taking consideration of the level of interest in holding a referendum a statutory obligation under clause 12(2), and consideration of the other factors under subsection (5) discretionary, the Bill already makes it clear that that level of interest is the primary factor to be considered. There is a statutory obligation under clause 12(2) to consider the level of interest in holding a referendum, and subsection (5) states that other relevant factors should be considered. 
 Amendment No. 20 would mean that a direction to the Boundary Commission to undertake a local government review in a region could not be varied or revoked. The inclusion of such a provision, which allows the variation of direction-making powers, is a standard practice. Such an approach is sensible, because it caters for any unforeseen or unexpected consequences, such as the Boundary Commission being unable to complete its work to the timetable that had previously been agreed. It would be odd indeed if that could not be revised. 
Mr. Hammond rose—

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me I will, I hope, put his mind at rest.
 The precedent for that approach can be found in the Local Government Act 1992, which was passed by the Conservative Government and gave exactly the same powers to Ministers as are in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman used the term ''ministerial fiat''. I am not sure whether he confused that with his various diatribes about ministerial limousines, but if he did, he got the make of the ministerial limousine wrong. Those ministerial fiats were seen as perfectly proper when his party was in Government and it is a bit rich for him to criticise us for making such sensible provisions now we are in Government.

Philip Hammond: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his departmental political correctness. He uses the
 word ''limousine'' because it is obviously strictly forbidden for any representative of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to use the word ''Jaguar''. Would the Minister say that without the inclusion of subsection (10) it would not be possible for a direction to be revoked by a subsequent direction?

Nick Raynsford: The subsection is necessary because it would not be implied by the Interpretation Act 1978 and because it is not a regulation or an order made by a statutory instrument. The hon. Gentleman has correctly identified that that is a ministerial power. The provisions of the 1992 Act were effected by ministerial power in the same way. The provision in the Bill ensures that a direction could be varied if that were necessary.
 I turn briefly to points that have been made by other hon. Members. I hope that when the hon. Member for New Forest, West reads Hansard he will discover that he started a number of sentences with ''But''. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government did not understand the Opposition's subtlety in adopting completely incompatible approaches, namely, amendment No. 13, as opposed to their support for a single, all-England referendum. That reminded me of a something written by, I think, Henry James, that the true test of intelligence was the ability to hold two mutually contradictory ideas in the mind simultaneously, and still continue to function. That is probably another metaphor for the Opposition. 
 The hon. Member for South-West Devon gave us an interesting insight into his visits to children in his constituency; I hope that his reference to their facial characteristics will not appear in the local newspaper. If it does, he might have a more difficult series of visits. He gave us an insight into his legal knowledge and expertise by talking about the principle of pleading in the alternative. Once again, that is a wonderful metaphor for the Conservative party at the present time. 
 On the issue of the soundings document, the hon. Gentleman asked why there is a rush. There is not a rush. We are simply proceeding in an orderly and sensible way to take soundings of public opinion while the Bill is being considered, so that we will be able to proceed in an expeditious fashion, without unduly protracting what is already quite a lengthy process, when it reaches Royal Assent.

Matthew Green: The Minister says that he is not in a rush. but when we asked him about a review of the boundaries of the proposed regions, and suggested that it should take no more than a year, he said that there was not sufficient time for such a review because it would take too long. If the Minister is not in a rush, why will he not carry out a review of the boundaries of all the regions of England before proceeding?

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman believes that a review of the boundaries of all the regions of England can be completed satisfactorily in a year, he reveals only too clearly how far out of touch with reality the Liberal Democrats are. Such issues are incredibly contentious. I know of no debate over boundaries—whether of a ward, a parliamentary constituency or a local authority area—that is not
 extremely vexatious and does not involve protracted argument. To carry out a review throughout England of all the regions would be very time consuming indeed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rethink his views, because they are not sensible if we are to make progress with the regional agenda.

Gary Streeter: The Minister has spoken about time scales and said that he was not in a hurry but wanted to get on with things expeditiously. He and the Secretary of State will require several months to consider the soundings exercise, which is to be completed by March. The Minister may have answered this question during the Second Reading debate—I hope that he will forgive me if he did—but when does he expect to be able to make decisions on regions and to instruct the boundary committee to get on with its work in the run-up to referendums?

Nick Raynsford: The question is perfectly fair and, to clarify the issue, I will repeat what I have said elsewhere. Our provisional plans are to complete the soundings in the spring and then—on the assumption that the Bill receives Royal Assent—give directions to the boundary committee. We are consulting on the draft guidance for the boundary committee and we expect to give directions to it in the summer, with a view to the first referendum or referendums being held in autumn 2004. That is the time scale that we have spelled out and are working to.
 During his contribution, the hon. Gentleman asked how we would detect any change in the level of interest. He was right to ask that question, and we have included a provision that takes account of the possibility of change over the course of the process—between the initial direction to the boundary committee and a subsequent referendum, a period of well over a year. During that period, we may well receive evidence from hon. Members or others of a change of view. That could happen. On some issues, the public mood changes over time. If such evidence came to us, it would be important to take it into account, which is why we have made the provision. 
 The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) asked about feedback from local authorities to ''Your Region, Your Choice''. The Government has had a significant amount of feedback from a wide range of people. We look not only to local authorities but to other organisations and individuals. We invited specific comments on the consultation element in the White Paper, which deals with the engagement of stakeholders in elected regional assemblies. However, people have also responded to other parts of the White Paper on which we were not specifically seeking responses. Those responses have come from local authorities, Members of Parliament and other interested individuals all over the country.

Adrian Flook: What is the quantum of the level of interest? Is it several hundred, several thousand, several dozen?

Nick Raynsford: I will write to the hon. Member to give him a detailed response—I do not want to give him figures off the top of my head—but the response has been significant, coming from a range of
 individuals and, indeed, some local authorities. Responses have not by any means been exclusively from local authorities.
 This has been a long debate. I hope that we have established that the amendments, whether from the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats, are neither necessary nor helpful. I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will withdraw his amendment and that the hon. Member for Ludlow will not press his.

Philip Hammond: The Minister is in full swing this morning. As one of my hon. Friends suggested earlier, perhaps he has been eating red meat for breakfast. If I were the Minister and had paid attention to events during the past week or so, I would be careful about saying that pleading in the alternative has become a metaphor for the Opposition. I would say that it has become a metaphor for his party's Government and the very heart of the Government.
 The Minister said that the question of the definition of the regions cannot be reopened and must be settled. If he genuinely cared about regional government throughout the whole of England, he would recognise that the largest impediment to it is the fact that the regions in many parts of the country that he proposes were created in a different era for a completely different purpose. They are not appropriate regions for the type of devolved regional government that he is discussing. In the south-east and east of England, that will be a major impediment to advancing the Government's programme. 
 The Minister might say that that does not matter and that several regions will be happy with their boundaries. I suspect that that is a fair comment in relation to the north-east, although individuals there will have different views. However, that is a major impediment to seeing the Government's programme as a genuine all-England solution and a long-term settlement of the question of how to balance devolution of the smaller United Kingdom nations with a form of local government settlement in England. The south-east and east regions cannot be equated in a meaningful way with the north-east region. They are simply not comparable in terms of gross domestic product and population size. A settlement that achieves an elected regional assembly in the north-east and perhaps the north-west but does not produce a credible way forward for the rest of England is not stable and does not suggest that the Government are genuinely interested in finding a long-term and stable solution to real questions about the governance of England.

Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the establishment of the present regional structure based on the Government offices for the regions. He will recall that Michael Heseltine, I think, presided over that structure. Does the Conservative party now want to deconstruct that framework and move to something else? If so, it will help my constituents and the Committee to understand the new direction in which the Conservative party under its current leader wants to move.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is of course right that the Government office regions were created under a Conservative Administration. However, they were created for a different purpose: they were administrative regions, not regions that were intended to have democratic coherence, which is required if they are to be the basis for a programme of elected regional assemblies.
 The Conservatives position is quite clear. If the structure of government in England is to change, that must come from the bottom up and represent what people want. The regions must reflect natural affinities and be organised in units that have real credibility at the lowest level, which are the cities, counties and communities to which people feel that they belong. The units must not be arbitrary interpretations. I put it to the hon. Gentleman, who might know the south-east better than the hon. Member for Ludlow, who claims not to know it at all, that a region containing both Banbury and Dover simply has no coherence and does not appeal to the affections and emotions of the people who live in it.

Jim Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will give way to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby.

Lawrie Quinn: The hon. Gentleman's line of thought is interesting. If he has time to look back at the record, he will see that I was involved in the debate that we attempted to have when the regional structure in question was imposed on regions in the north-east—in Yorkshire and Humberside. I am still trying to determine the current position of the hon. Gentleman's party. Is he saying that they would move away from the current regional structure to a smaller framework, or would they opt for the concept of the total English parliament? I am still not clear about the direction of the official Opposition's policy.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman talks about something smaller. Therein lies the problem. The north-east has a population of between 1.5 million and 2 million, and is approximately the same size as the counties of Essex and Kent. If we open up the question of having some lower tier of government within England, we are bound to ask why it is appropriate to have one region with a population with 6.5 million and another with a population of a quarter of that. That is unstable and unsustainable.
Lawrie Quinn rose—

Philip Hammond: I will resist allowing the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because he will find that the Opposition have tabled a new clause. It has not yet been printed, but I suspect that it will be taken in Committee. It will propose that there will be an opportunity to discuss again the boundaries of the regions before any referendum is called. One of the criteria to be taken into account will be the approximate equivalence of size between regions.

Nick Raynsford: Ridiculous.

Philip Hammond: The Minister says ridiculous, but how can it be—

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman should think about the logic of population and geography. If he believes that London is a vaguely coherent area with a population of more than 7 million, how can he possibly establish a rough equivalence between regions throughout the country? Such equivalence would require enormous regions in certain parts of the country to reach anything like that population.

Philip Hammond: I will try to answer the Minister's point, Mr. Benton, although I anticipate that at some stage you will try to prevent me from going down this route. I will see how far I can get, because this is clearly a debate that we will have on the Floor of the House.
 The Minister seems always to want to consider regions inwardly, as though they will have no impact outside themselves and raise matters only for internal concern. However, there is an English dimension to the regional settlement. Each region and the degree of autonomy or regional government that it assumes will have an impact on the way in which the rest of England functions. The regions may even have an impact on the way in which this Parliament functions and on our ability to scrutinise what happens in them. 
 This is a very important debate, which, to be blunt, should have been held before we entered into a debate about the mechanics of holding a referendum in a specific region. The Government should have looked at the map of England and asked if the proposal was a remotely logical and stable way to proceed. If we must have some tier of government—it does not matter whether we call it regional or local, those are just words—between central Government and the parish council, we must ask which is the best way of organising it in England. 
 I must give way to the hon. Member for South Dorset, as he has now been waiting for half an hour.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman talks about the process whereby regions move towards regional assemblies one by one, in pairs, or whatever, being unstable. Does he support the continuation of the Greater London Assembly?

Joe Benton: Order. We are straying from the amendment.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Benton.
 We have been discussing some of the minutiae of the mechanics of the Bill, but there are still some important questions, which hon. Members on both sides of the debate are interested to explore further. I am only sorry that Parliament has not had a greater opportunity to do that. 
 The Bill is narrowly about the referendum, because the Government have chosen to include a preamble to the referendum question, which, by its nature, is fairly discursive. However, I alert the Committee to the fact that, conveniently for Parliament, the debate on clause 2 will be able to range fairly widely because of the way in which the preamble to the proposed question is phrased. I look forward to being able to address some of those issues on the Floor of the House next Wednesday.

Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: I want to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me.
 I was also disappointed to hear the Minister's remarks about the consultation paper to which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon referred. The Minister seemed to think that it was good that it had already gone out to consultation while Parliament was still considering these matters and that Parliament, too, would have an opportunity to join in with the consultation. That seems to be a metaphor—to use the Minister's word—for this Government's approach to Parliament. Parliament is simply another consultee—one among many—to whom they may or may not be prepared to listen. That is yet another example of the contempt in which this Government appear to hold Parliament. 
 On the specific comments that the Minister made about the various amendments, I am a little disappointed by what he said about the use of the word ''but'', which is clearly redundant. The Minister has done his best with the brief that he was given, but the word is redundant. If it is not redundant, it needs to join subsections (1) and (2). I do not know how the Minister can possibly pre-empt Hansard in determining where my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West has finished one sentence and started another. It seems highly likely that the grammatically diligent Hansard editors will assume that my hon. Friend's use of the word ''but'' is separated from his previous remarks by a comma. We wait to see whether the Minister's speculation is justified. 
 I would also be interested to discover whether the various examining boards of English throughout the country—the Government prefer not to talk about some of them too much these days—will take the same relaxed view about sentences starting with ''but''. If I have the time and inclination tomorrow, I will try to find out. I believe that English grammar still has a place. I accept that the language evolves. You may wish to call me old-fashioned, Mr. Benton, but Acts of Parliament, which will endure for many years, are not the appropriate place in which to experiment with modish changes in the use of language. Otherwise, we run the risk of people reading the statutes in a few years' time when the fashion has moved on and not being able to understand them.

Lawrie Quinn: As part of the research that the hon. Gentleman is proposing to undertake over the weekend, and as he has already referred to the importance of television in framing the debate, I commend to him Lord Bragg's current programme on the development of English. He will find it very useful.

Joe Benton: Order. I must ask members of the Committee to keep interventions relevant to the amendment. We are straying away from it.

Philip Hammond: The Committee is gaining a fascinating insight into the televisual habits of the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), who clearly needs a dramatic increase in his
 constituency postbag. He might then be more gainfully occupied at the weekends. I shall write a letter to the ''Scarborough Bugle'' to see if we can do anything to help.
 I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that my interpretation of the clause was correct. I am disappointed that he did not want to write that reference into the Bill. Indeed, I thought it a little rich of him to say that it was redundant when the word ''but'' has to remain even though it is clearly redundant. I suspect that although the Minister thinks that this is a trivial argument, some of our noble Friends may take a rather different view of the importance of English grammar. My noble Friend Lord Patten, whose name has been mentioned, might, if suitably alerted in advance, wish to ensure that he is present to contribute to this important debate in the other place. 
 By consensus, the key amendment in the group is the one that would introduce a slightly more objective test of whether a referendum should be held than just whether the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest. My solution was to amend the Bill to say that the Secretary of State had reached the conclusion that a majority were likely to be in favour. Other hon. Members have suggested that there should be a more objective indication of the required level of interest. 
 The Secretary of State could consider the level of interest, conclude that only 5 per cent. of the population of the region were remotely interested in a referendum and, as I understand it, would have satisfied the precondition. He might be politically foolish, but he would not be constrained. 
 The crucial point, which I raised but which the Minister did not answer, was that it would not be obvious what the basis of a judicial challenge to the Secretary of State's decision would be. If the Secretary of State says, ''I have considered the level of interest,'' he does not have to add ''and I have concluded that it is high,'' which, although still woolly, might be susceptible to a challenge or a review. The Secretary of State's assertion that he has considered the level of interest is clearly not susceptible to challenge, unless it can be proven that from the time when the Act came into force or before—he can act retrospectively under the Bill—he had at all relevant times been in a deep coma and therefore could not have considered the matter. Even I would not go so far as to suggest that that was the case.

Gary Streeter: Does my hon. Friend recall that last week I invited the Minister to tell us what the word ''consult'' meant? We all received a helpful letter setting out several centuries of case law on the subject. Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful to ruin someone else's weekend and invite the Minister to arrange for us to receive a letter about the legal definition of the word ''consider''?

Philip Hammond: That is not a trivial point, because if there is to be an opportunity to challenge whether the Secretary of State has gone through the process that he has to go through, it becomes relevant. Clearly, it will be extremely difficult for even the cleverest and most devious lawyer to find a way to challenge an assertion
 by the Secretary of State that he has considered the level of interest.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is not referring to the hon. Member for South-West Devon, is he?

Philip Hammond: I am not. The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go down a road that a self-denying ordinance would cause me to resist, but I was thinking of other, far better known lawyers, who have been the subject of media attention recently.
 The Minister is clearly an intelligent man. He said that about the Opposition earlier and we were grateful for the observation. Perhaps his flattery was unintentional, but that is what he said, and I should like to reciprocate it. Some Opposition Members have a great deal of sympathy with his having to defend on occasion what he knows is at the very least somewhat difficult to defend. The Minister must realise that he has fudged the issue on the assessment of the level of interest. 
 It is perfectly clear to the ordinary, reasonably intelligent observer that when it comes to the level of interest in answering a question about changing the status quo, those who do not favour such a change are not likely to be the movers and shakers in such a debate. That is a fairly uncontroversial statement about human nature. 
 It is also likely—indeed, self-evidently true—that people who are uninterested in a referendum are unlikely to engage in the debate about having a referendum. People who are opposed to a referendum may get involved in the debate, but people who are not interested will, by definition, ignore the whole process. That is why I invited the Minister to confirm that he would not draw any false conclusions from the fact that the great majority of the replies received so far express a high level of interest in conducting a referendum. That would be expected, irrespective of whether people are in favour of, or opposed to, elected regional assemblies. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon tried to draw from the Minister what level of response he would consider necessary, and the Minister seems to have conceded that he would take the level of response into account. Conservative Members have been trying to build this into the Bill, but not—to adopt the Minister's words—in a mechanistic way. The test suggested in the amendment would still have been subjective, but it would, in principle, have been susceptible to challenge. The obligation placed on the Secretary of State under the Bill is, as far as I can see, in no way susceptible to any challenge. It is bad law making to confer a power on the Secretary of State when a court could never determine whether it has been discharged properly. 
 The Minister said that he would want to consider evidence from all parts of a region. It is the first time that I have heard him conceding that the geographical distribution of feeling within a region should be an important consideration. It is a significant and welcome statement. However, we would like some 
 provisions along those lines to be built into the Bill. It might have to be woolly—it cannot be mechanistic—but it would be a welcome gesture towards taking the geographical spread of opinion within a region into account. 
 I shall reflect on whether a suitable amendment could be tabled, but the Government have vastly superior resources than the Opposition—or, indeed, Back-Bench Government Members, who have been encouraged by the Minister to table something—so why does the Minister not talk to his draftsmen about an appropriate amendment? If he did, it would be extremely welcome. 
 We have had a long debate, but not wasted our time. In debating the powers placed on the Secretary of State before instituting a local government review, we have had a rehearsal for the forthcoming clause 1 debate about similar requirements placed on the Secretary of State before he calls a referendum. Contributions from various members of the Committee and the Minister's response to them today will make our clause 1 debate on the Floor of the House better informed and we can skip some of the preliminaries.

Graham Stringer: I want to deal briefly with three questions put to my right hon. Friend the Minister. Unusually, his answers were not entirely satisfactory: he is usually a highly logical, rational and lucid thinker, but not on these three occasions.
 First, I declare myself a supporter of deleting the word ''but''. If we cannot define the difference and what it adds to the sentence, it should go. I shall not detain the Committee on that, except to say that words matter. I once authorised a legal case about the beneficial interest in Manchester airport, which revolved around the definition of the word ''and''. We hired expensive lawyers, as did our opponents, and went all the way to the House of Lords on the definition of ''and''. Unfortunately, my side lost. It shows how definitions of words can be highly significant. 
 More importantly, it is a shame that my right hon. Friend could not define ''level of interest''. When I asked for a definition, he used the word ''degree''. I am not sure of the difference between ''level'' and ''degree'' of interest, so it did not add much to the Committee's understanding. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend could not quantify what it meant, although I am not surprised at that. 
 Opposition Members have, consciously or not, misunderstood the purpose of the clause, which is to provide the Deputy Prime Minister, or appropriate Secretary of State, with a subjective test that will help him to decide whether to hold a referendum in a region. 
 In the real world, however, the only consideration likely to be in the Deputy Prime Minister's mind is precisely the wording of amendment No. 13—whether the referendum will be won. I cannot see the Deputy Prime Minister opting for a referendum—irrespective of the level of interest—unless he thinks that he would 
 win it. It would be better if the test were more realistic. We know what is likely to happen in the event. 
 I did not scrutinise the consultation document, particularly question seven, carefully enough. It is taking the sounding exercise to a ridiculous extent when the second most important question on the questionnaire asks for a subjective impression of a subjective test. The Deputy Prime Minister will presumably consider respondents' thoughts about other people's impressions of holding a referendum—a long way from asking whether they believe in an elected assembly. I view that as absurd. It would be more open and direct if we asked about real intentions. 
 I have shared platforms with the Deputy Prime Minister over the years, and he has been passionate about regional government for decades. I do not doubt his commitment to it; it is sincere and thought through. He knows what he wants. However, he will not always be there. We might ask ourselves why the electorate is not allowed to determine whether there should be a referendum, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Minister's answers were adequate. 
 Let us imagine that Conservative Members were in government—it is a terrible thought and I apologise for bringing it up—as they unfortunately were for 18 years, which was most of my adult political life. Let us imagine that the Bill was before them. It is my guess that in the north-east, possibly the north-west and other parts of the country, there would be a stronger desire to be free of the Conservative Government. Whatever interest and drive there has been for regional government has mainly come from the regional disparities that were made so much worse in the 18 years of the Conservative Government. 
 If the Conservatives were back in office, whatever little interest there is in regional government at the moment—it is difficult to know how much there is—would increase. The only person who would be able to implement the Bill and say, ''Yes, you can have a regional assembly and more devolution'' would be a Conservative Secretary of State with a subjective test.

Philip Hammond: I can help the hon. Gentleman further by reminding him that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has already made it clear that a Conservative Secretary of State would not use the Bill, if enacted, to institute a referendum.

Graham Stringer: The point is that it would be more democratic to do what we, as a Government and a party, have already done, which is to give the electorate an opportunity to have more direct access to the trigger that starts the referendum. I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Minister has not persuaded me that the soundings exercise is as good or as meaningful as allowing people to campaign for signatures and say that they want a referendum, as they can do for an elected mayor. People who wanted to get rid of the idea of regional assemblies for five years might want to do that, to get the idea out of the way.
 Under our process, and while our Government are in power, the Secretary of State will make the 
 subjective judgment. Realistically, that will be only when it is likely that we will win. If Opposition Members were in power, they simply would not allow a referendum, although it might well be more necessary then.

Matthew Green: If we have come to the end of the subject, given the Minister's reassurances, and as we have put on record what we sought to achieve through amendment No. 46, I should like to say that I shall not press the amendment.

Philip Hammond: I am most disappointed that the Minister has not taken the opportunity to respond to the well argued points of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley is, too. Clearly, Ministers often draft legislation on the assumption that they will be in power for ever. Ministers in Committee are generally nice people because they have not yet reached the corrupting heights of Secretary of State. I am always disposed to say that I have no doubts that the Minister with whom I am dealing directly will exercise the powers carefully and properly. However, that Minister can never be sure that those powers, which are not there only for his use or that of his immediate friends, will be used properly in the future. The purpose of legislation should be to draft a framework that is robust and can deal with the vicissitudes of political life over a long period. It is more than a touch of arrogance to assume, when drafting legislation, that one will always be in power to exercise the powers granted under it.
 I have listened to the debate and drawn my own conclusions from the Minister's obvious reluctance to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley. I intend to press amendment No. 13 to a Division and I will try to deal with the grammatical problem of amendment No. 12 in another place. However, for the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 13, in 
clause 12, page 5, line 37, leave out from 'has' to end of line 38 and insert 'concluded on the basis of the evidence available to him that there is likely to be a majority in favour of an elected assembly if a referendum is held in that region'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in
clause 12, page 6, line 9, at end insert 'and shall publish all such views, information and evidence in an appropriate form.'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 19, in
clause 12, page 6, line 38, at end insert 'and published their response'.{**w8**}

Matthew Green: The purpose of amendment No. 44 is purely to require the Secretary of State to be more open and transparent. Perhaps he intends to be anyway, but we would prefer to have it included in the Bill.
 We would not wish for private addresses and so forth to be made available, but clearly the evidence should be available in an appropriate form. If local government is going to be reviewed because a referendum may take place, all the information that supports the review should be made public. We need to do that to avoid the suggestion that the Government may have ignored opinion or moved against it in making the decision, which I suspect that many people would allege if the information were not made public. It is in the Government's interest to make the information available. 
 The Minister may tell us that the amendment is entirely unnecessary because they plan to do what it requires anyway. However, we would like that to be written into the Bill. The amendment is simple and I hope that the Government and the Conservatives will support it. It will make this Bill more open and reduce the chances of someone challenging it in the courts or making accusations that the Government would find difficult to refute.

Philip Hammond: As the Committee knows, we do not have any problems with publication; we will always encourage the Government to make public any supporting evidence.
 I have been in this place for only five and a half years but, even in that time, the grounds on which legal challenges may be made increasingly creep into our deliberations. I regret that, although I suspect that it is inevitable. The Government's human rights legislation has created a rights-based body of law and caused a change in attitude towards the idea of challenging administrative decisions. That may or may not be a bad thing, but I am sure, Mr. Benton, that you would not encourage me to go into a lengthy discussion of that topic today. Availability of information, transparency of government and freedom of information—about which we heard so much from the Labour party when it was in opposition and about which we have heard so little since—are relevant factors. 
 Amendment No. 19 would put into clause 12 of the Bill a requirement on the boundary committee to publish its responses. We have tabled other amendments requiring information and advice flowing from the Electoral Commission to the Government to be published. However, as I told the Committee, the Electoral Commission has made it clear that, in the absence of any constraint being placed on it in legislation, it would routinely expect to publish such advice on its website. I am not sure whether the boundary committee is bound by the Electoral Commission's commitment. 
 The Minister acknowledged that the Government intend to place the Electoral Commission's advice in the public domain. We therefore have a belt-and-braces approach to the Electoral Commission. However, I have not been able to confirm whether the boundary committee would, of its own volition, place its advice in the public domain. I therefore seek an assurance from the Minister that, whatever the boundary committee does, the Government will publish the responses that they receive.

Jim Knight: Why does the hon. Gentleman want that information to be published?

Philip Hammond: I had intended to make that clear. We live in an increasingly litigious society and we have already talked at some length about opportunities for challenging Government decisions or interpretations. A prerequisite for doing that successfully, or even credibly, is information. If advice is passing from the boundary committee—an impartial body—to Government, and is being ignored by Government, that would be a significant factor in building a credible case for judicial review of a Government action. To anyone wishing to challenge a Government action, it will be important to have access to the advice that the Government have received.
 I say to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) that I expect that the Minister will make me very happy when he stands up to speak and that we will be able to end our deliberations this morning in sweetness and light.

Nick Raynsford: I hope that I can rise to that challenge. I shall start my response with amendment No. 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow. It would require the Secretary of State to publish all views, information and evidence provided for his consideration of the level of interest in and between regions in holding a referendum. Members of the Committee know that we have already launched our soundings exercise to gain evidence of the level of interest in each English region. We propose to publish a summary of the views received during the soundings and to explain our choice of region or regions to have a local government review. We shall explain that to Parliament. Some respondents may request that their response remains confidential. In that instance, such a response would still be included in any numerical analysis that we undertake, but it would not be attributed to the respondent in the summary analysis.
 Amendment No. 44 could mean that it was not possible for a response to remain confidential, should a respondent request that.

Matthew Green: I thought that I had made the position clear. The amendment refers to ''in an appropriate form'' and would clearly allow responses to remain anonymous, if that were requested. The Minister is wrong. The amendment would allow exactly what he said it would not allow.

Nick Raynsford: I am not a lawyer, but the amendment states:
''shall publish all such views, information and evidence in an appropriate form''.
 That is not necessarily a guarantee of the retention of confidentiality. Some views may be expressed in a way that, even if the name of the respondent were withheld, would by their nature reveal the person or the interest on whose behalf they were expressed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman fully understands the issues of confidentiality.

Philip Hammond: I was not minded to say anything about the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats, but we have already heard the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley explain to the Committee how the sounding will be seeking the impressions of individuals about what other people are thinking. It is a third-hand process. The Minister referred to the confidentiality of the responses. Surely those organisations or individuals taking it upon themselves to tell him what they believe that people in the region are thinking and feeling should be subject at least to the scrutiny of publicity.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is confusing two separate issues. For whatever reason, individuals may wish their views to remain confidential, and we would respect that. People who are responding and saying that their response represents a wider perspective, because they are either members of a club or society that has held discussions or because they speak on behalf of a wider constituency, are a different issue. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for an organisation responding on behalf of a large group of people to seek confidentiality, but there will be circumstances when an individual does, for reasons that I have explained. It would be wrong that such a position would be prejudiced by the amendment.
 We intend to publish a summary of the views received during the soundings and to explain fully what led the Secretary of State to his decision. I hope 
 that the hon. Member for Ludlow will accept that and will withdraw his amendment. 
 Amendment No. 19 would require the Secretary of State to publish the boundary committee's response to the consultation. The committee is independent of the Government and we do not believe that we should be in the position of requiring it by statute to reach one view or another. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge fully conceded in this and previous debates, the Electoral Commission has made perfectly clear its intention to publish details of any consultation process that it may have with the Government and we expect the boundary committee to follow the same principles. If it fails to disclose information that is requested about the issue, we would consider any request for information relating to the development of the thinking behind the dates in the direction under our code of practice on access to Government information. 
 Indeed, when it comes into full force, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will also bite, should disclosure be appropriate under the terms of the Act or the code. I wholly reject the hon. Gentleman's pejorative remarks about the Government's commitment to freedom of information. We have passed such legislation and have done a great deal to open up the secretive culture that characterised the Conservative party when it was in government.

Philip Hammond: Why does not the Minister just tell the Committee that he will accept the amendment and place in the Bill an obligation for the Government to publish the advice received?
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.